-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The Skeptical Zone started by Richardthughes

Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 15 2011,22:52

here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.
Posted by: Alan Fox on Aug. 16 2011,05:38

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2011,17:52)

here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's a Wordpress template, Rich. First comments from new posters are automatically held in moderation. Maybe Lizzie hasn't had time with all the stuff she's been posting at UD.
Posted by: J-Dog on Aug. 16 2011,08:00

Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 15 2011,22:52)

here it is:

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

I did dun 3 postings, but my comments r not promoted.

I has a sad.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps you:

Didn't use enough Oil of Ad-Hom in the post?

Failed to quote the correct Chapter & Verse from The correct version of The Bibble? (KJV of course)

Throw your pc from the plane?

Forgot to add enough Lewontin?

Oh wait - that's UD Posting Rules!

Nevermind...

Give it time and you'll get through! It's not UD, right?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2011,08:25

How did you log in? There seem to be several doorways. Perhaps one is broken.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Aug. 16 2011,08:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 16 2011,08:25)

How did you log in? There seem to be several doorways. Perhaps one is broken.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Just general comments submission. I have since gone through registration. Returning later, I can see new comments approved after where I posted, so I think they are either lost or discarded.
Posted by: Febble on Aug. 16 2011,12:19

Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie
Posted by: OgreMkV on Aug. 16 2011,13:15

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)

Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.

I've enjoyed your work BTW.
Posted by: Badger3k on Aug. 16 2011,20:29

Seriously - the "Atheists get morality from religion" canard? I had expected better based on the arguments I've seen quoted.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Aug. 16 2011,20:31

I think I killed it. Or at least stunk up the place so no one else wants to play.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Aug. 16 2011,21:14

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)

Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Febble, be sure to add a bolded comment, AKA the loudspeaker in the ceiling, rebutting Rich's comments. He would really enjoy it, it would give him fond reminisces of DaveScot days.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Aug. 17 2011,00:19

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Aug. 16 2011,22:14)

Quote (Febble @ Aug. 16 2011,12:19)

Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Febble, be sure to add a bolded comment, AKA the loudspeaker in the ceiling, rebutting Rich's comments. He would really enjoy it, it would give him fond reminisces of DaveScot days.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I do. I shall try and leave my priors and irreverence here. I also need clarification on your stance on LOLcats, FT4U, All science so far! and other AtBC memes.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

any odds on how long until Joe plays tough guy?
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 20 2012,12:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Aug. 16 2011,11:15)

If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey Ogre - wp question: Over on TSZ, I seem to have lost the ability to edit, even when logged in to wp. All I see on the dashboard are spellcheck and expand-window icon. I used to have edit buttons, html tags and all sorts of other stuff. What me doin' rong?
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 20 2012,16:20

If you need any help with Wordpress, let me know, I'm an old hand at it.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Hey Ogre - wp question: Over on TSZ, I seem to have lost the ability to edit, even when logged in to wp. All I see on the dashboard are spellcheck and expand-window icon. I used to have edit buttons, html tags and all sorts of other stuff. What me doin' rong?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It may be that Liz turned off editing or has edited permissions.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 20 2012,20:43

Well, it's never a good idea to leave edit permissions on when creationists are commenting.

...and I don't assume bad faith on their part, I simply look at the evidence.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 20 2012,23:15

As I recall, the edit function had a "timeout" feature after the post was entered which I thought was a good way to prevent another Chris Doyle or FtK "incident". Heck, I'll forgo an edit function if I can have a "preview" function instead. I'm always screwing up the quotes, tags, and anything requiring code-based protocols or semantics.

Edited, to make sure I still <b><i><u>can!</u></i></b>

Posted by: Febble on Feb. 21 2012,03:11

There should be a 30 minute edit window for comments, and posts can no longer be edited after midnight (to avoid deletion of entire threads).

There are two ways of editing a post, one gives you a menu and no wysiwyg, the other gives you wysiwyg but no menu.

It would be nice to figure out how to give people both....
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 22 2012,22:28

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 23 2012,11:19

From my point of view, the notion that complex, functionally-integrated information-processing systems and the associated machinery, with error-detection-and-repair algorithms, were engineered by the introduction of random errors, with the bad errors being thrown out and the good errors being preserved, strikes me as being irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment.

On the other hand, you and most of the contributors to your blog consider my inference to design to be irrational, illogical, in contradiction to the evidence, and based on a philosophical precommitment (although my original philosophical precommitment was yours and that of most of your contributors).

I thus return to the theme my original post, which is that there is an unbridgeable gap.

Thanks for the opportunity to post here. It was fun while it lasted.

I'll check in from time to time.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That's a shame, Gil. You had a chance to engage, rather than preach to flock. I think Gil's a good guy deep-down, despite his peccadilloes.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's hardly surprising. He's been playing one song for years: "Personal incredulity, and you should believe me because I'm smart".

It's not much of a song, but that frilly shirt looks fabulous.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 23 2012,12:27

Site now has mini-forum attached.
Posted by: keiths on Feb. 23 2012,20:58

From the too-good-to-be-true department, dvunkannon discovers that < LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package >:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Still waiting for those simple probability calculations, Gil. In the meantime, can you explain why LS-DYNA has a genetic optimization package?

I just made the mistake of looking at some of the comments at TSZ in the Good arguments and straw men thread. As usual the bible thumping IDiots are calling people names (like "troll") and making insulting remarks about reading comprehension and other things to or about non-IDiots.

I stopped reading when I saw EL's response to this mess by WJM (my responses are in bold type):

William J. Murray on February 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

This is probably essentially off-topic, but anyway:

But that won't stop you from proselytizing and being a pompous jerk, right?

For myself, and probably most people posting or reading ID/NDE (neo-darwinian evolution) debates, we lack the scientific or mathematical education/background/training to make any formal scientific arguments about ID or NDE. The best we might be able to do is recognize logical challenges/solutions/problems involved in more specifically educated arguments about ID vs NDE.

This is why I try to keep my contributions about the logic and philosophy involved, and not interpretations of technical data. I'm not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits. I suspect most those contributing here are equally unqualified.

Suspect yourself and your IDiotic comrades. Just because you and your fellow IDiots are "not qualified to parse the technical data on biological or mathematical merits" doesn't mean that non-IDiots are "equally unqualified". That's one of the biggest problems with you morons. Because you're delusional, stupid, and uneducated, you think that anyone who questions or opposes you must be just as delusional, stupid, and uneducated, or more so. From your position of delusion, ignorance, and lack of education, you can't see that many people are way smarter and more educated than you, and are not delusional to boot.

Which brings me to my point: those whom I suspect are equally unqualified to parse the merits of the data often make assertions about the explanatory power of NDE theory that is well beyond their capacity to know. It's often (logically speaking) beyond the capacity of even experts in specific fields to know. Comments such as (from this thread):

There you go again suspecting something unfounded and wrong about people who are actually your intellectual superiors by miles. And, now that you made a bunch of asinine, insulting remarks in a lame attempt to discredit and diminish the intellect and knowledge of non-IDiots, you're going to get to your "point"?

I note that organisms are not optimal in their function/form ~ it is easy to make a wish list of improvements. This is to be expected in 'evolution world', but not in 'ID world'

One only knows what "optimal form" is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design.

Actually, one only knows what ANY function/form is in terms of ID if the full intent of the designer is known, as well as the necessary parameters and specifications to be met by the design. In other words, without knowing (and showing) the intent, parameters, and specifications to be met by the alleged design, you IDiots don't know squat and are just dishonestly proselytizing for your non-scientific, non-evidential, wacky religious beliefs.

For everyone else, there is a single, consistent, fully explanatory theory supported by all known observations without exception.

I doubt even the most long-tenured, multi-discipline, research-practicing evolutionary biologist could meaningfully claim this. This is obviously a statement of faith, not first-hand investigatory knowledge about "all known observations without exception".

What you doubt is irrelevant and meaningless to science and rational debate, and your absolutely moronic and desperate assertion about "first-hand investigatory knowledge" is so arrogant and stupid as to be good for nothing but laughs and mockery. No evolutionary biologist claims to have first-hand investigatory knowledge of all known observations without exception and Flint didn't claim that. Tell me, do you have "first-hand investigatory knowledge" of the alleged creation of the universe by your chosen god, or the alleged garden of eden, or the alleged talking snake, or the alleged 'flood', or the alleged ark, or the alleged conception, birth, life, death, and resurrection of a guy now called jesus, or anything else in your fairy tale religious dogma?

There is no reason to suppose any teleological or supernatural forces are involved.

This in the face of hundreds of years of biology that has worked against the commonly held supposition of teleological forces involved, and is easily disputed by referring to Lewontin or many others who have written about the apparent design in nature. This is just rhetoric in the face of the history of evolutionary theory and thought.

Blah blah blah. Nothing but arrogant, twisted bullshit.

If one reads through much of the ID/NDE commentary on this site (or even on UD), from both sides there is much presentation of characterizations of ID, or of ID researchers, or of NDE, or NDE researchers, or of the state of research, or of what is known, or what has been proven or not proven, or what there is evidence of or not of, by those who really don't have much of an idea of what they are talking about when it comes to actually evaluating data on the merits oneself and not just taking someone else's word for what it means.

Look at a mirror if you want to see someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. And whose word are YOU taking for all the bullshit religious stories you believe?

Basically, the debate is 90% negative or positive characterizations & rhetoric, and maybe 10% qualified interpretation and criticism of data & the merits of an argument. So, I'd say that really, about 90% of us are, in terms of the scientific and mathematical evidence and argument, doing nothing more in that specific area of argument than cheerleading those who actually understand the science and/or the math.

There you go yet again making a lame attempt to denigrate and diminish scientists and science supporters who are vastly superior to you and the other IDiots in understanding scientific and mathematical evidence and arguments. Yeah, you don't understand squat, and you're an arrogant religious retard, and your ridiculous and insulting assertions about non-IDiots are nothing more than your lame attempt to fool yourself and others into believing that your opponents are as stupid as you are.

So the question I finally draw to is: Why have we chosen ID, or NDE, when we lack the necessary qualifications to do anything more, really, than appeal to authority when it comes to the actual science involved?

Since I obviously do not understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, I must rest my choice on other considerations, which I think is what is behind how most people make the choice between ID and NDE (or between NDE and creationism); other considerations.

Yeah, since you don't understand enough of the science or math to reach a qualified decision about either, you must rest your choice on the easy and delusional fairy tales of your chosen religion. Congratulations, you're an ignorant nutcase.

So, I think the best populist argument for ID, for the 90%, has nothing really to do with math or science (or even logic) that is over our head anyway, but rather the hope, meaning, purpose and value that is conferred upon life & existence under the ID paradigm that is not available under the NDE paradigm.

In other words you're a scientifically and mathematically illiterate godbot who prefers fairy tales to reality, you support and promote a dishonest Dominionist agenda, and you think that makes it okay for you to rank down science, scientists, and science supporters.

I think that it is also true that for 90% of NDE believers, that it is some populist or psychological reason that they have adopted NDE (as was historically said, Darwinism allowed one to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist), and attempt to characterize their belief as scientific or logical when it really is not.

How do you know that "it really is not" when you admittedly don't understand science and math? You're speaking from 100% delusion, ignorance, and arrogance.

At the end of the day, most of what either side tries to do (outside of the players educated in the particular fields) is characterize their ID or NDE belief as being based on science or logic; but when it comes down to it, that belief is really - IMO - nothing more than a reflection of what they want or need to believe anyway.

Again, speak for yourself. And what makes you think that "players educated in the particular fields" aren't involved in debates with you uneducated IDiots?

Personally, I choose to believe in god. I prefer believing in god (and yes, I've tried atheism). And unless there is some kind of logical contradiction or fact of my existence that contradicts ID, I will believe that our universe and life was designed by an intelligence. I prefer living under that paradigm.

Oh, so you've "tried atheism"? If only you knew how asinine that sounds. Live under any delusion you like but keep your insanity out of science, schools, politics, and the lives of people who don't want and don't need your religious crutch.

That doesn't mean I cannot make logical arguments for ID, or for god; nor does it mean I can't read papers and make sense out of some of the science and math; it just means that I admit my fundamental reason for belief is something other than that which I'm really not qualified to evaluate.

Actually, you god zombies are incapable of making a logical argument for ID and anything else. And yes, you're unqualified to evaluate science, math, logic, and reality, so stop telling people who are qualified to evaluate those things that they are wrong.

And I think that this is probably true for most people involved in the debate.

What you think is gibberish.

(Reply)Elizabeth on February 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm said:

That's interesting, William, thanks.

Actually, it's crap.Posted by: Febble on Feb. 24 2012,04:45

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 24 2012,06:22

Gil is such a < drama queen >.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 24 2012,08:07

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,14:22)

Gil is such a < drama queen >.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

not only does he have a small consequence his return is more probable than teh messiah.
Posted by: JohnW on Feb. 24 2012,11:51

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 24 2012,04:22)

Gil is such a < drama queen >.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------Liz,

I respectfully request that my account at this forum be permanently deleted. The probability that I will return is zero.

Participating here is a colossally pointless waste of time, but thanks for the initial invite.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The last sentence is exactly right, though, and some of us knew that all along.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

He uses longer words, but this is exactly like one of FTK's flounce-in / flounce-out cycles at ATBC:

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,05:39

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
Posted by: Kattarina98 on Feb. 25 2012,06:11

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,09:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four. Thanks.

Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 25 2012,09:46

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,09:06)

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge". I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four. Thanks.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've long been an advocate of good science education.

That's not what we're discussing here.

What's at issue here is being able to make a judgment on the argumentation proffered as "intelligent design". You are claiming that one needs a scientific background to even approach evaluating it. I'm saying that's wrong. Where IDC advocates even approach science is all in the "evolution is wrong" category of argumentation, and that offers *no* support for their alternative conjecture. (As noted in Kitzmiller v. DASD, where testable claims are made, they are testable because they are about evolution, which is testable, and not about ID, which isn't.) What they do have that even approaches making a case for their alternative is all stuff that is decades, or even centuries, out of contention for making anybody even shrug about it.

This isn't an argument about the content or nature of science. The IDC advocates want to pitch it that way, but there's no good reason I know of to accommodate them.

If you want to have a rousing discussion on the merits of some particular "evolution is wrong!" argument, I'd suggest a reminder each and every time that whatever one decides about it, the outcome in no way aids a religious antievolution viewpoint. You'll probably elicit a pretty clear statement of the invalid "two-model" or "oppositional dualism" stance from a religious antievolution advocate on that point. It's good to get them on record supporting logical fallacies.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,17:33

I take your point.

I still think the notion that if something is shown to be not-quite-right that doesn't necessarily mean it is All Wrong is not intuitive.

At the very least, Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong, should be compulsory reading in all schools.[I]
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 25 2012,17:34

BTW, the comment editor is broken, and everyone is waiting for an update.

There is a workaround, though, that works in Firefox at least - if you right-click on the edit link, and open in a new tab or window, you get an edit window that seems to work OK.

But I hope they will fix the pop-up window soon. I can't find another comment editor that works.
Posted by: BWE on Feb. 26 2012,01:47

What is the link to the forum? I am havind several internet problems lately. But i got a friend request
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 26 2012,02:34

< http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp >

ETA clip off the ellipses after the first /wp

Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Feb. 26 2012,03:25

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 26 2012,07:17

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2012,11:25)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)

That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.

BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

PHHHT .................BELIEF IS THAT ADAM & EVE WERE THE FIRST 2 PEOPLE ON EARTH.

ID SUPPORTERS ARE JUST STUPID .....WHICH STRANGELY ENOUGH MEANS/IS THAT THEY CAN'T LEARN, EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO.

ID ...IT'S LIKE OBSERVING A FREAK SHOW.

YOU KNOW IT'S WRONG BUT WHAT THE HELL, IF PEOPLE ARE PAYING MONEY TOO SEE IT, THEN THERE'S NO HARM. RIGHT?

GIVEN THAT THEY HAVE OSSIFIED INTO A GRAVEYARD OF TEH SMALL IDEAS OUTSIDE OF SOME CREEPY SMALL TOWN IN TEH CONFEDERACY SHOULDN'T WE GIVE THEM A FINAL SEND OFF......WITH COLLECTABLES?

IF THEY COME BACK YOU'LL GET YOUR GOD BACK, ALL YOUR TITHES, YOUR VIRGINITY AND YOUR PET CAT...JUST THE SAME AS IF YOU PLAYED A COUNTRY AND WESTERN RECORD BACKWARDS

AMEN
Posted by: Quack on Feb. 26 2012,07:30

---------------------QUOTE-------------------I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Because it would be like a pact with the devil.
Posted by: Woodbine on Feb. 26 2012,08:20

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 26 2012,09:25)

I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I think the main problem is that they already believe that God 'did it', and therefore the idea that ID could be advancing unsound arguments just does not compute.

Take Denyse O'Leary; she's your typical ID shill. Denyse already believes life was intelligently designed but she demonstrably has not the crudest understanding of the arguments of Behe or Dembski etc.

And because she does not understand the arguments for ID she does not understand the criticism being levelled against ID. And because she doesn't understand the only interpretation she can put on it is that the criticism levelled against ID arguments must therefore be politically or ideologically motivated.
Posted by: NormOlsen on Feb. 26 2012,11:39

Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 26 2012,08:20)

And because she doesn't understand the only interpretation she can put on it is that the criticism levelled against ID arguments must therefore be politically or ideologically motivated.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It's worse than that. She is so ideologically entrenched that she can't even entertain the notion that others might not be similarly motivated. For her it's ideology all the way down.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 26 2012,15:19

I also don't think that you need a scientific education to see that ID is vacuous. Prior to Dover the commonest complaint on PT was that the MSM was too much he said-she said when they reported on ID. Once the case started this quickly changed to ridicule and now except for some Fox pundits they don't even bother reporting on it.

I come here for 2 reasons:1. The unintended humour of the UDists and the intended humour of the ATBCers.2. To try to understand their psychology. What goes on in their brains. Why would Gil come onto Liz's site and say that he could prove that evolution was impossible using basic probability not provide the calculation and flounce out using the insults as an excuse.

Now what are the options:1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.

I'd be interested in Liz's opinion on she thinks happened. For Gil I tend towards number 3. People like Joe I think tend towards number 2. That is he KNOWS that ID is correct but also know where the evidence lies. Joe thinks that for now he can confuse matters by throwing dung around and maybe one day somebody will find some evidence for ID.
Posted by: socle on Feb. 26 2012,16:22

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 26 2012,15:19)

Now what are the options:1. He is completely unhinged and planned it all ahead of time.2. He thought he had the devastating proof when he made the claim. As this was the first time anybody asked him to provide it, he realised that it was puerile and looked for any excuse to run away from the site.3. His subconcious protecting him from reality led him to think that he actually did provide the proof and he was insulted that everybody on the site weren't instantly converted and flounced out.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Can we vote too?

I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Feb. 26 2012,16:31

Quote (socle @ Feb. 26 2012,17:22)

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

and deliciously so

that makes my innernets
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 26 2012,17:11

Quote (socle @ Feb. 27 2012,07:22)

I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Which basically says '2' as he must not be conscious of not being able to back up his claims.

Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Feb. 26 2012,17:46

Quote (socle @ Feb. 26 2012,16:22)

Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key:

1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument.

2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Right now Lizzie's Guano page has 120 posts.

41 of those are from Joe G.

Next closest is olegt with 11.

'nuff said.
Posted by: Febble on Feb. 26 2012,18:35

Well, I seem to have inadvertently deleted the entire site.

Hope to have a backup up shortly.

Yikes.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 26 2012,18:43

Whew! I was just posting a reply when it went down. I thought I broke it.

ETA: Fortunately, I've learned from experience to compose my posts in a text document, and then cut-n-paste into the post edit window.

Posted by: Febble on Feb. 26 2012,19:04

I can't believe I managed to be so stupid. Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....
Posted by: olegt on Feb. 26 2012,19:09

That's a pity. The forum became quite popular. But, Liz, even if much of it is gone, we will repopulate the site again.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Feb. 26 2012,19:17

Quote (olegt @ Feb. 26 2012,19:09)

That's a pity. The forum became quite popular. But, Liz, even if much of it is gone, we will repopulate the site again.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

JUST LIEK TEH FLUD
Posted by: carlsonjok on Feb. 26 2012,19:25

Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,19:04)

I can't believe I managed to be so stupid. Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Sure. I believe you. NOT!

You are just trying to hide the simple probability calculations that Gil used to show how evolution can't create sophisticated information processing machines!

There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....---------------------QUOTE-------------------

If it helps I have tabs still open with the front page and the Good arguments and straw men thread. They were opened not long before the crash. Nothing else, though. I've copied them to Word - let me know if you want them.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Feb. 27 2012,01:15

It appears to be back up again. Only obvious post missing is Conch
Posted by: dvunkannon on Feb. 27 2012,12:17

I don't know, I don't think it was my fault this time. I've put in a support request.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I'm sure it's not you, Lizzie. Possibly the site reacted badly to the crankiness I felt...

Posted by: Lou FCD on Feb. 27 2012,16:47

Mop up of JoeG bullshit on aisle 5.

Keep that shit on the Tardgasm thread.

< Religious Vomit >

Posted by: Febble on Feb. 27 2012,17:40

There was a rogue plug in that I have now deactivated. Sorry about that!

I'm going to keep things simple for a bit.

Also I've now, thanks to aiguy who sent me the lost texts, restored the Conching thread.

Any aisle-mopping will have to wait until tomorrow evening.

Cheers guys :)
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 01 2012,11:32

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 01 2012,11:41

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Too much CSI?
Posted by: carlsonjok on Mar. 01 2012,12:07

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 01 2012,11:41)

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Too much CSI?---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Perhaps the Evolutionary Atheist Conspiracy had the site deleted because Joe was getting too close to disproving Darwinism.

Edit: to/too/two. whatever!

Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,13:17

Connectivity to TSV up and down today. :-(
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Mar. 04 2012,13:55

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,13:55

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,13:17)

Connectivity to TSV up and down today. :-(---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've sent in a ticket.
Posted by: Febble on Mar. 04 2012,13:56

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 04 2012,13:55)

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good thought.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,13:58

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 04 2012,13:56)

Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 04 2012,13:55)

Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)

shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!---------------------QUOTE-------------------

On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Good thought.---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And probably also multiple guano ones.

Minor navigation thought - it can be hard to go back and see precisely what people have said with the 'previous / next' set up.

I think it had run its course :)---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I guess. Joe can always further develop his ideas on his blog, or maybe one day in code. All revolutionary ideas get scoffed at in the beginning.
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Mar. 04 2012,16:06

I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Mar. 04 2012,17:12

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 04 2012,16:06)

I guess the best way to deal with Joe might be to ignore him. Otherwise, TSZ will be in perpetual derail until he finds somewhere else to irritate, in clueless ignorance of his own cluelessness.

But for the fact that I can't imagine anyone getting pleasure from such an activity, I'd say he is simply trolling for the attention. Then again, I thought that about Doug Dobney at Sandwalk too - when Larry was away, a 550-post megathread blew up, and he seemed to be just orchestrating the pro-science side into a frenzy for kicks. But I began to realise that he was deadly serious. And then I felt quite sorry for him.

Either way, if one has an interest in internet discussion, someone being ridiculous right in front of you, with those tiresome refrains and persistent misapprehension in response, is a hard lure to ignore. I decided to say nothing more to that fuckwit a long time back, but I haven't kept the promise entirely.---------------------QUOTE-------------------